whatever the enquiry comes up with it will be accused of being biased because everyone has their own biased narrative, and obviously knows exactly what really happened and unless it supports their view then it will obviously be biased, fixed, a cover up, lies, fake - the only thing that is patently obvious with Covid is how many people have been left with selective memory
No, not really - From the article "The consensus position in pre-2020 pandemic plans was that non-pharmaceutical interventions, including lockdown, had weak evidence of effectiveness, and were predicted to cause substantial harm to society, especially if used for prolonged periods." The scientific consensus before the pandemic was that lockdowns were more detrimental and had long term economic and social consequences. The selective memory was the government scientific advisers ignoring or forgetting the original scientific consensus and ploughing ahead with complete lockdown, because the international policy was this. Taping off park benches, exercise only for 45 minutes a day, only 4 to a funeral, eat at Nandos for £10, keep children off school for extended periods... All bullshit policies that the 'conspiracy theorists' were vocal about all during the pandemic.
good word consensus, especially when it's not supported by evidence as to whose consensus it is other than some nebulous expression such as scientific - by the way keeping children off school was a demand by the teachers and unions against the promise of teaching children at home - most of them did absolutely **** all, at least that's the consensus
The consensus of the 55 involved in the inquiry process ... "In a letter to Baroness Hallett, the inquiry chairman, the group of 55 professors and academics express their concerns that the process is “not living up to its mission” to evaluate the mistakes made during the pandemic, assess whether Covid measures were appropriate, and to prepare the country for the next pandemic. They warn that a “lack of neutrality” means the inquiry “gives the impression of being fundamentally biased” and appears to have led to “predetermined conclusions, for example, to lockdown faster next time”. Whatever happened to listening to experts and following the science...?
They're not involved in the inquiry process are they, I thought they were just a bunch of people who didn't like what they're hearing?
The inquiry should be lead by real experts. Like Karen off Facebook, Darren off Twitter, Kevin off Threads & Caryn who watches You Tube.
They're involved the inquiry, before the list of core participants is drawn up... Its in the article - "While anyone can submit evidence to the inquiry, “core participant” groups enjoy special status, including the right to representation and the ability to make legal submissions, suggest questions for witnesses and receive disclosure of documentation"
Strange to pick working class, British names, Ben. The list of academics who've contributed to this inquiry are a mix of British culture.
The article just suggests they want to be included in the core participants, at the moment I believe only bereaved families have been given core participant status for the next module, there's no suggestion I can see of them having been involved in the enquiry to date.
A huge waste of money, just like the handling of COVID itself. The elderly and vulnerable should have isolated, and everyone else gone about their daily business. If only those at the time had the hindsight I didn't have. The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
They've submitted evidence that will be considered, as you or I could, so I class that as being part of the inquiry, you don't and so that is fair enough.
Well, everyone had to isolate, apart from the Darrens, Kevins and Karyns who were working as delivery drivers and nurses, so didnt have the option.
I haven't seen the names, is there any overlap with The Great Barrington Declaration list of academics and medical professionals? For example, the Great Barrington Declaration list included “Dr Johnny Bananas”, “Professor Cominic Dummings”, "Dr Person Fakename", “Harold Shipman”, “Dr Johnny Fartpants”, “Professor Notaf Uckingclue”, "Dr Very Dodgy Doctor”, “Mr Banana Rama”, “Professor Ita Rôle Italy Pudding and dessert expert”, “Dr Brian Blessed Doctor in Winged Flight, Z-Cars and Booming Laughter”. Are any of those experts in this list?
So to sum this up for me , I had the jabs , stayed indoors etc but got tired of the contradictory opinions we: Didn’t need the jabs Could have taken vitamin D Carried on at work and mixed The vulnerable elderly would have died anyway Not needed furlow Wouldn’t have lots of lazy people who now can’t be bothered to work because they got used to it which of these are correct ? Seriously I have no agenda but the arguments confuse me . This should see us through the next two weeks LOL
I don't think at any point anyone said don't take Vitamin D, on the contrary the advice was Vitamin D is generally good for people so take it if you want. The debate was whether it had a particularly beneficial effect on Covid patients, and the early research didn't suggest that but more recent research benefiting from a lot more data has suggested the opposite.
Whether any of those are correct is dependent on your opinion and judgement, ST - my opinion is that you should have been able to make your own decisions without restriction of life quality - your body, your decision. If you wanted the jabs, you have them, if not, don't - every day we take a decision on what we put in our body and the benefits and risks of it. If you wanted to work, work, if not, don't. If you are elderly, unhealthy and sick, probably best if you isolated, although should have been your choice. If you wanted to wear a mask, do it, if not, don't. We are all adults and able to make decisions and judgements for ourselves and this should be the guide.
